From a press release of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Key new ingredient in climate model refines global predictions

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Oct. 9, 2009 — For the first time, climate scientists from across the country have successfully incorporated the nitrogen cycle into global simulations for climate change, questioning previous assumptions regarding carbon feedback and potentially helping to refine model forecasts about global warming.
The results of the experiment at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are published in the current issue of Biogeosciences. They illustrate the complexity of climate modeling by demonstrating how natural processes still have a strong effect on the carbon cycle and climate simulations. In this case, scientists found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated when the requirement of plant nutrients are included in the climate model.
ORNL’s Peter Thornton, lead author of the paper, describes the inclusion of these processes as a necessary step to improve the accuracy of climate change assessments.
“We’ve shown that if all of the global modeling groups were to include some kind of nutrient dynamics, the range of model predictions would shrink because of the constraining effects of the carbon nutrient limitations, even though it’s a more complex model.”
To date, climate models ignored the nutrient requirements for new vegetation growth, assuming that all plants on earth had access to as much “plant food” as they needed. But by taking the natural demand for nutrients into account, the authors have shown that the stimulation of plant growth over the coming century may be two to three times smaller than previously predicted. Since less growth implies less CO2 absorbed by vegetation, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are expected to increase.
However, this reduction in growth is partially offset by another effect on the nitrogen cycle: an increase in the availability of nutrients resulting from an accelerated rate of decomposition – the rotting of dead plants and other organic matter – that occurs with a rise in temperature.
Combining these two effects, the authors discovered that the increased availability of nutrients from more rapid decomposition did not counterbalance the reduced level of plant growth calculated by natural nutrient limitations; therefore less new growth and higher atmospheric CO¬2 concentrations are expected.
The study’s author list, which consists of scientists from eight different institutions around the U.S. including ORNL, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, and several research universities, exemplifies the broad expertise required to engage in the multidisciplinary field that is global climate modeling.
“In order to do these experiments in the climate system model, expertise is needed in the nitrogen cycle, but there is also a need for climate modeling expertise, the ocean has to be involved properly, the atmospheric chemistry . . . and then there are a lot of observations that have been used to parameterize the model,” said Thornton, who works in ORNL’s Environmental Sciences Division.
![]() |
|
|
ORNL’s Peter Thornton is helping climate scientists incorporate the nitrogen cycle into global simulations for climate change.
|
|
“The biggest challenge has been bridging this multidisciplinary gap and demonstrating to the very broad range of climate scientists who range everywhere from cloud dynamicists to deep ocean circulation specialists that [incorporating the nitrogen cycle] is a worthwhile and useful approach.”
The ability to handle the increase in complexities of these models was facilitated by the capabilities of ORNL’s Leadership Computing Facility, which currently houses the world’s fastest supercomputer for civilian research. Jim Hack, director of the National Center for Computational Sciences, emphasizes that Thornton and his team were not limited by computational resources in the construction of his model. “It’s one of the laboratory competencies, so we want to make sure we enable leadership science,” he said.
This breakthrough is one more step toward a more realistic prediction for the future of the earth’s climate. Nevertheless, potentially significant processes and dynamics are still missing from the simulations. Thornton also stresses the importance of long-term observation so scientists can better understand and model these processes.
A 15-year study of the role nitrogen plays in plant nutrition at Harvard Forest was an important observational source used to test their mathematical representation of the nitrogen cycle–a long experiment by any standards, but still an experiment that, according to Thornton, could improve the accuracy of the simulation if conducted even longer.
Other shortcomings of climate simulations include the disregard of changing vegetation patterns due to human land use and potential shifts in types of vegetation that might occur under a changing climate, although both topics are the focus of ongoing studies.
The research was funded by the DOE Office of Science. Additional resources were contributed by NASA Earth Science Enterprise, Terrestrial Ecology Program; National Center for Atmospheric Research through the NCAR Community Climate System Modeling program and the NCAR Biogeosciences program.
UT-Battelle manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy.
###

“rbateman (21:04:02) :
Deborah (20:24:32) :
Got a remedy for gophers/moles etc.?”
Not for gophers but my mom has one for moles as long as you don’t have a dog or small kids who might dig in the dirt.
Break a glass bottle or jar. Find a mole tunnel or hole and put the broken glass inside the hole. It takes a bit of time and you have to make sure that the tunnel is actively used. If so the moles will die off. Mom tells me that mole blood won’t clot right and if they get a cut they bleed to death. I haven’t tried it myself since up until my dog died this summer he was the mighty mole hunter and he decimated the population quite efficiently.
Re: “Got a remedy for gophers/moles etc.?”
Turn the O.R.N.L. geniuses loose on those gophers/moles etc. If they can kill off every critter in the woods surrounding Oak Ridge, TN, they can surely handle a pesky gopher/mole etc.
Actually, I exaggerate. There are still critters out there in spite of O.R.N.L. activities. You could wind up with super-moles equipped with extra digging limbs and naturally lit-up for night work.
Doesn’t look that way according to this. Looks like it will peter out over the California mountains.
You Northern Hemispherians seem to be Falling into a wine induced Autumnal mood,or is it the Harvest moon that has just passed?….down under (I really hate that term), our sap is rising.
“The biggest challenge has been bridging this multidisciplinary gap […]”
^Exactly my experience, as I’ve blazed (cross-discipline) trails for 2 decades. In new territory people assume you know f-all, but their ignorance & arrogance (if left uncountered) constitute a threat to the sustainable defense of civilization.
–
Research on nutrient cycling is tremendously important. In the early 90s I was fortunate. I worked with a biogeochemistry group and wrote papers on plant survival of climate change, with focus on population genetics of range-shifts on fragmented landscapes.
What’s not (necessarily) obvious:
The interaction of diversity and spatiotemporal heterogeneity.
Limiting factors for growth & survival vary by species, by individual, by location, over time, etc. …i.e. complexity – (not simple 2+2=5 linear-dichotomies that fit a brain-dumb message-frame…)
What is really missing in the above story?
—————————-
The hydrologic cycle
—————————-
(…is the elephant in the room, as we’ve known all along).
“scientists found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated”
The scientists could have been staying at home. The result of their “studies” was obvious before they started their work
crosspatch (23:03:58) :
You sure about that?
Many plants and trees outsource nitrogen fixation to bacteria and pay them in energy rich chemicals. More CO2 makes them more efficient at photosynthesis and allow them bigger budgets to pay bacteria with. Their leaves, branches and dead remains feed everything else. Unless they have a theory about the Earth’s nitrogen gas vanishing because of capitalist greed and such, their new “models” are still sad. They seem not to have discovered life on earth yet. I would suspect that life is pretty good at liberating needed trace minerals from rocks also if more energy is poured into the system through more efficient photosynthesis.
Ron de Haan (22:01:26) :
“Phytoplankton Bloom in the Bering Sea
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2FNaturalHazards%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D40716%26src%3Deorss-nh”
I told you there might be an explosion in the whale population.
Pamela,
Bit o’ advice: Men should drink only white wine, women should drink the darkest red wine they can find. With chocolate.
Don’t agree. Men should drink Purakanui Upper Ranks Reserve IPA, pinot noir and Purakanui Jagermeister; agree with women, but they should also try Purakanui pinot griggio, butterscotch schnapps and orange brandy. But they should save themselves for the Purakanui melon schnapps. Worth crossing the world for!
Well I did my part to get nitrogen in my lawn. I planted some clover (The neighbors are irritated 🙂 )
The one thing that bothers me about this kind of article is that, as most astute readers on here have noted, the authors’ conclusions rest on a set of assumptions, the validity of which has yet to be proven. However, folks without a formal education that teaches them to hunt down and weed out the assumptions behind an assertion will see the headline and then conclude the authors know what they’re talking about, never having realized the faultiness of the underlying assumptions. This is how the myth is perpetuated. It used to be that one was required to explicitly state their assumptions when proffering a conclusion, but, sadly, the state of academic ethics today is such that this requirement is often overlooked, especially when the conclusion supports a pro-AGW agenda.
Until clouds can be correctly modeled at a close scale, models will always have a whopping ncertainty in them which these studies are fiddling round the edges of.
Kum Dollison (18:52:06) :
“…
Warm = more vegetation
More vegetation = more large “grazers.”
More large grazers = more nitrogen (manure, urea)
Then, there are the nitrogen-fixing plants”
I think Kum is on target here. They should rejigger their
calculations to take these factors into account and fire up
that big honking computer again…
Of course if they turn enough nobs they can conclude
anything they want. How many unknowns and guessed
parameters do we have here? 6 zillion?
Ha! Somehow I think these bozo’s have never had a garden or been outside except maybe to walk across a parking lot and drive somewhere!
What does the headline, ‘Fixing the nitrogen cycle in climate modeling’ mean? How can we fix something that’s so perfect it can already predict the future climate a century from now? Do you mean those models do not include everything that influences climate?
Deborah (19:17:42) : “Throw them zucchinis my way. I didn’t get a single one off of three plants. Great looking leaves, no fruit.”
It is my understanding that too much nitrogen encourages more green plant growth but less fruit. Plants growing in an over nourished environment don’t need to produce as much fruit on the basis that it is so easy for small amounts of seeds to survive that there is no need to produce 100’s of seeds to get 1 or 2 new plants. I have found that stressing the plants a bit will increase fruit production.
The research seems to be addressing questions that are not even relevant in the real world in which we live.
They say that plants will not grow as rapantly as the increased levels of CO2 would suggest, because plants can only grow (surprise, surprise) as fast as is permitted by the scarcest of the parameters present – soil nutrients in this case.
But the question as to how much plant growth can offset rising CO2
Lima city is surrounded with barren hills. When in 97-98 big el Nino, without any rain at all they became green, specially one, usually covered with sand. We never had,except for those years, temperatures above 31°C.
In the image above: There is a rounded and yellow circle representing the SUN, which, btw, it is NOT included in these model games, and to which famous astrophysicists asign no role whatsoever in climate.
[sorry, I caught the enter key with my pinky – here it is again]
The research seems to be addressing questions that are not even relevant in the real world in which we live.
They say that plants will not grow as rapantly as the increased levels of CO2 would suggest, because plants can only grow (surprise, surprise) as fast as is permitted by the scarcest of the parameters present – soil nutrients in this case.
But the question as to how much plant growth can offset rising CO2 is only relevant if you believe that CO2 is rising dangerously and must be curtailed. In any case, once you get some lovely nitrogen fertiliser down, you will get the best yields possible from your food crops – so what’s the problem?
red432 (05:03:16) :
How many unknowns and guessed
parameters do we have here? 6 zillion?
Enough degrees of freedom to create many herds of trunk wiggling elephants farting their way across the savannah into.
In summary:
Unprecedented
Positive feedbacks
Software totally rules!
Al Gore
Nobel Peace Prize
Snake Oil Baron (00:07:59) :
Someone should introduce them to the plants that thrived before there was a topsoil layer, etc. Like the Sequoia Giganteum, which gorges itself on totally sterile mineral soil, sunlight, water and C02.
Someone should remind them of the plants that sucked huge volumes of C02 out of the atmosphere to form the world’s coal beds.
Nature will find a way. It’s the All Warming Oldies 24/7 Models that are having the problem.
Re: limiting nutrients
As I’d learned it, for plants, the usual limiting nutrient is either phosphorus or nitrogen. Phosphates should be added if they’re not in the soil. Only nitrogen fixing plants, like peanuts, can get their nitrogen from the air.
Phosphate removal from detergents was useful only in the rivers and lakes where phosphorus was the limiting nutrient for algae.
And the geo-engineering proposals of adding iron to fertilize polar seas are feasible only where iron is the limiting nutrient.
That’s wonderful news. Now if those rocket scientists at Oak Ridge could just figure out how to incorporate the H2O (aka “water”) cycle into their climate models; you know; heat/evaporation (vapor phase)/ thermal expansion/ altitude convection/cooling/condensation (liquid phase)/cloud formation/more cooling/freezing; ice formation(solid phase)/heat exchange/latent heat/precipitation/whatever.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful if they could do that ?